Moved by Lord Douglas-Miller That the draft Regulations laid before
the House on 14 December 2023 be approved. The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con) My Lords, the UK has the
highest welfare score in the G7, according to the world animal
protection index, and some of the highest animal welfare standards
in the world. This Government are determined to maintain our
position as a...Request free trial
Moved by
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 December
2023 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, the UK has the highest welfare score in the G7,
according to the world animal protection index, and some of the
highest animal welfare standards in the world. This Government
are determined to maintain our position as a world leader in
animal welfare. These regulations will make an important
contribution to the ambitious animal welfare reforms that have
taken place since this Government came to power.
It is estimated that up to 5,000 primates may be being kept as
pets in England. When we called for evidence in 2019, we were
appalled by what we found. Some primates were being kept in bird
cages; others were being fed junk food. These animals suffer and
can be left malnourished, aggressive and malformed. The
Government are introducing these regulations to provide the
additional protection necessary for primates that are not kept in
zoos but in domestic or other private settings, by requiring
primate keepers to have a specialist licence to keep them. They
will, in effect, ban people from keeping primates as household
pets by ensuring that they are not kept in environments, such as
people’s homes, that fail to provide for their needs. Primates
have specific welfare needs, and this SI means that people will
no longer be able to keep primates as household pets—that is, in
their homes—in the same way that they might keep a pet dog or
cat. Instead, private primate keepers will need to satisfy
enforcement authorities that they can meet the zoo-like standards
we have licensed for.
The Government consulted on the proposed prohibitions on keeping
primates, and the introduction of a licensing scheme in England,
in 2020 and 2023. Over 98% of responses to the Government’s
consultation exercise in 2020 and over 97% of responses to the
subsequent consultation in 2023 expressed overwhelming support
for a bespoke licensing system for the private keeping of
primates.
This SI is brought forward under Section 13 of the Animal Welfare
Act 2006. The licensing scheme it introduces will set stringent
rules to ensure that only private keepers who can provide high
welfare standards akin to those provided by licensed zoos will be
able to keep primates. The SI outlines how applications for
primate licences are to be made, how local authorities are to
determine whether to grant a licence application, and how
licences are to be renewed, varied or surrendered. It provides
local authorities with powers to issue rectification notices and
to revoke or vary primate licences.
Individuals who currently keep or intend to keep primates in
England will be required to have a primate licence from 6 April
2026. Primate licences will be issued by local authorities only
to individuals who can meet the welfare standards set out in the
regulations. Anyone keeping a primate in England without a
required licence will be committing an offence under Section
13(6) of the Animal Welfare Act and will be liable on summary
conviction to imprisonment for a term of up to six months, an
unlimited fine or both.
Keepers will need to apply for a private primate licence from the
local authority. Licences will be valid for a maximum of three
years and will be granted only after a satisfactory inspection
conducted by the relevant authority. Licence holders must undergo
re-assessment to renew their permission to keep these animals.
Inspections will assess record-keeping, provision of emergency
arrangements, care and maintenance, environment, physical health,
nutrition and feeding, behaviour, handling and restraint,
transport, and breeding. Guidance will be provided setting out
the detailed welfare standards to be met.
The Government have noted concerns about the welfare of primates
whose keepers fail to meet licensing conditions but are not
persuaded that a grandfather clause enabling existing owners to
keep primates without complying with these conditions is best for
the animals, as such a provision would sanction the keeping of
primates in poor conditions.
This SI has a transitional period and owners will have
approximately two years to meet the licensing requirements, reach
compliance or make alternative arrangements for their primates.
Before then, my officials will engage with local authority and
rescue interests to work through the practical impacts of the SI
and determine how they might be supported to meet potential
future demand for their services.
I am more than happy to take any questions from noble Lords.
Amendment to the Motion
Moved by
of Ullock
At end insert “but regrets that the draft Animal Welfare (Primate
Licences) (England) Regulations 2023 seek to implement through
secondary legislation proposals that were previously contained in
primary legislation; notes that they do not ban keeping primates
as pets, and that they lack a grandfather clause; and calls upon
His Majesty’s Government to put in place policies that
appropriately support the rehoming of surrendered primates.”
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this
statutory instrument. We on these Benches have been consistently
campaigning for a ban on the trading and keeping of primates as
pets. The Minister outlined a number of reasons why this needs to
happen. The RSPCA found that primates kept in domestic settings
were often isolated, could be kept in cramped and inappropriate
housing such as parrot cages, and were weaned much earlier than
would be natural, causing behavioural problems later in life for
infants separated from their mothers.
The Monkey Sanctuary in Cornwall has reported that every pet
primate it has rescued came to the sanctuary with behavioural
problems such as rocking, pacing, obsessive grooming and biting
themselves. Many primates also present with metabolic bone
disease and tooth problems linked to vitamin deficiencies caused
by poor diet, lack of sunlight and being weaned too early.
At the end of last year, we were pleased to see that, following
consultation, the Government announced that:
“Keeping primates as pets will be banned under new legislation …
improving the welfare of thousands of animals”.
In response to that consultation, 98.7%—4,500 people—expressed
support for a ban on the keeping, breeding, acquiring, gifting,
selling or otherwise transferring of primates, apart from to
persons licensed to keep primates to zoo-level standards. So it
is a bit disappointing that the regulations do not ban the
keeping of primates as pets, but instead introduce a licensing
system for primate keepers. To draw proper attention to this
fact, I have tabled my amendment to the Motion, as it is
important that the Government are clear and honest about what the
legislation actually does.
I shall lay out our concerns relating to these draft regulations,
including a number of issues that could be dealt with via
accompanying guidance to the regulations. But first, I thank the
RSCPA, the Born Free Foundation and other animal welfare
organisations for sending us helpful briefings.
Before I look at the SI in detail, can the Minister confirm in
respect of the proposed licensing system that anyone with an
animal welfare-related conviction will be excluded? It is
important to have that clearly outlined.
There are clear concerns that the Government have backtracked on
proposals to include grandfather rights in the regulations, which
would enable those who currently own primates to keep them under
the previous standards. What will happen in two years’ time to
the thousands of primates currently being kept by private
individuals who will not meet the licensing requirements, given
that there are no provisions for these animals in the
regulations?
5.00pm
As the Minister explained, and as the Explanatory Note on page 18
of the draft regulations makes clear, as of 6 April 2026, keepers
of pet primates who do not have a licence
“will be committing an offence”.
There are very few specialist primate sanctuaries, and most are
at capacity. This will create huge challenges for local
authorities, animal welfare organisations and rescue centres, and
could result in pressure to grant licences for primates held in
insufficient or inappropriate conditions because there is simply
nowhere for them to be rehomed, or in many primates being kept
illegally and covertly, which could result in further health and
welfare issues. I am aware the Minister talked about how his
officials would be working with local authorities and zoos, for
example, but it is really important that, when that work takes
place, this is resolved before we reach the cut-off date in April
2026. We could also see that more primates are released or
abandoned. The risks are not clearly identified in any impact
assessment associated with the regulations. Perhaps I have missed
it and this is something that the Minister could clarify.
Defra, in its December 2020 consultation document, proposed
that
“given the absence of other alternatives, these primates may
continue to stay where they are for the rest of their lives or
until they can be rehomed, subject to an annual vet visit”.
Almost all respondents to the 2020 call for evidence who
supported a ban stated that a grandfather policy would be needed;
it is not clear why this provision has been removed. What is the
reasoning behind this?
What will the Government do to ensure there is a framework for
local authority enforcement officers, animal welfare
organisations and primate sanctuaries to manage the
implementation of the regulations? Will the Government commit to
urgently putting plans in place to address this issue, including
providing financial assistance to genuine sanctuaries and working
with zoos to ensure the welfare of the thousands of primates that
will need to be rehomed if the Government are to achieve their
stated intention of restricting primate-keeping to those who meet
“zoo-level standards”?
I turn to some of the specifics of the SI in front of us. As
currently drafted, inspections could be carried out by people who
do not have the required specialist knowledge and expertise in
the welfare of primates or their requirements. There is no
stipulation in the regulations of the need for veterinarians to
have appropriate specialist qualifications or experience. In Part
1, Regulation 2, “General Interpretation”, an appropriate expert
is defined as
“a veterinarian; or … any other person who … is suitably
qualified”
to provide that advice or guidance. Surely the Minister agrees
that it is important that the guidance accompanying the
regulations clearly specifies what constitutes a suitable
qualification for vets or other individuals.
Animal welfare organisations have suggested that the following
could be included in accompanying guidance. First, that a
specialist vet must have a recognised professional qualification
and experience relating to primates—I am aware that that may be
challenging. I am not sure how many would actually have that
qualification, but it needs to be looked at. Secondly, that a
primate welfare specialist must have recognised qualifications
and demonstrable experience in primate welfare, keeping and
behaviour. Thirdly, any primate welfare specialist must have
undergone specific training in how to conduct an inspection under
the new standards. The final suggestion is that a registry of
such experts should be retained by Defra, in order that they can
be called upon to assist with any inspection when needed. Will
the department consider those suggestions?
Could the Government clarify the definition in paragraph 1 of
Schedule 1 of
“any other individual who is suitably qualified to provide that
advice or guidance”?
What is “any other individual”? We need to be clear on this when
we are looking at animal welfare.
I turn to paragraphs 25 to 37 of Schedule 1. Guidance is needed
to determine, for example, the “appropriate natural behaviours”,
“appropriate social groups” and suitable “spatial dimensions”
that achieve the zoo-level standards promised by the Government.
It is really important that we have clear definitions and
guidelines for enforcement officers within the guidance when it
comes out.
Paragraphs 45 to 48 specify conditions for breeding. The RSPCA
and others have made it clear that they are opposed to this, as
they believe that the breeding of primates, even under high
welfare conditions, would encourage their private keeping—which
the SI is designed to prevent. Has Defra discussed these concerns
with the RSPCA or other animal welfare organisations? If not, why
not? If it was aware of these concerns, why has the department
chosen to include breeding within the regulations?
Paragraphs 24, 39 and 42 allow pets to be removed from their
enclosures, handled and transported so that they can be
exhibited. The current inspection processes for the regulations
do not include inspection of the conditions in which animals are
kept and exhibited at events. These derogations seem to fly in
the face of the Government’s previously stated intentions. Can
the Minister explain why exhibiting has been included?
Finally, in Part 1, Regulations 4 and 5 seem to contradict each
other as to whether the regulations extend to England and Wales
or to England only. Perhaps the Minister can clear up this
confusion.
We want to see a ban on the private keeping of primates. We will
not oppose this SI, because we believe that, if it is properly
enforced and sufficiently high standards are met, it should see a
stop to the majority of private primate keeping. We hope that the
regulations, when introduced, will be robustly enforced, that a
clear road map will be laid out on how to ensure protection for
those primates already kept as pets, and that there will be
strong guidance to ensure that their implementation is smooth and
they do what they are intended to do. I beg to move.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare my past and present connections with the
RSPCA.
I welcome this SI, but I am sad that it does not go further. I
should have liked to have seen a straight ban on the keeping of
primates by private owners. If not, there then has to be a whole
series of regulations, rules and guidance to try to ensure that
standards are sufficiently high. You could cut all that out if
you just said a straight no. That is not what we are faced with
this afternoon, though I am grateful for small mercies.
I have been and remain very worried about the impact of unnatural
conditions on the keeping of primates, which will continue for a
couple of years. It is impossible for the bulk of private owners
to provide the kind of natural setting which is suitable for
these animals.
Even more importantly, they are social animals. They live
naturally in groups. In many cases, owners have only one. To me,
that is positively cruel. It is the equivalent of solitary
confinement for a human being. We all know the impacts of
solitary confinement on the psychology and health of people; I
believe that it is equally bad for primates. That is a very real
concern which I hope can be overcome by the regulations. But will
they insist that people have groups of animals? I suspect not, so
one of the difficulties will remain.
I do not want to go into detail on the points that the noble
Baroness, Lady Hayman, has already made. I have considerable
sympathy with her criticisms. I too am extremely puzzled as to
why the breeding of primates is allowed. For me, if flies in the
face of what this SI supposedly wants to do. I hope that the
Minister will be able to explain why he thinks this is a good
idea. Furthermore, I would have thought it will ensure that
animals continue to be kept ad infinitum. It is a great puzzle to
me.
I am equally puzzled by the point that exhibitions will be
allowed. What exhibitions? That sounds more like a circus to me.
What possible reason can there be to have animals in exhibitions?
It is absolutely absurd. I am sorry to be so firm with my noble
friend, but I do not like it and I do not approve.
Then there is the problem of enforcement. Rules and regulations
are fine, providing they are adhered to strictly. Here we have an
added problem. The instrument sets out all sorts of excellent
arrangements as to the amount of space allowed and all these
other details, but we do not have the guidance before us to
indicate how this would be worked out in practice. It is a
continual complaint of mine that, when people bring forth the
principles of things, we do not get the details, which are
absolutely essential. I worry about this considerably.
We then, of course, have the particular worry of the
implementation—the interim period, if you like, when I think
after 6 April 2026 people will either need to have a licence or
be asked to give up their animals. The noble Baroness, Lady
Hayman, already indicated that this could cause a real problem in
practical terms. I too press my noble friend the Minister on
exactly how the Government propose to deal with this. Will they,
for example, set up special sanctuaries? I do not think there
will be enough to do the trick, as at present. I should be happy
to hear from my noble friend if I am wrong on that, but I suspect
there will be a very real problem with implementation.
For that reason, I too would have preferred what is called a
grandfather clause, whereby existing owners could keep the
animals for the rest of their natural life. Those conditions may
not be ideal, but we have to balance that against the possibility
of what will happen in practice if they are all flooded on to the
market at once, if I may put it that way, and whether their
conditions would be any better. If my noble friend can assure me
that that will not be so, then I will worry less about the
absence of a grandfather clause.
I both welcome this and am disappointed by some aspects of it,
particularly considering the absolutely remarkable ability, with
modern technology, to see animals in their natural habitat
through films and through sound. Why on earth would anyone wish
to keep them in artificial conditions, which will be at best
adequate and at worst appalling? I really would wish to go
further, but as I say, I accept the SI for want of anything
better.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register,
particularly my role as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary
Group for Animal Welfare. I apologise that I may well repeat many
of the excellent points already made by the noble Baronesses,
Lady Hayman and Lady Fookes, but they bear repetition. I hope the
Minister will take them into account, answer them and perhaps
address some of them in guidance.
I broadly welcome these regulations, which were a major feature
of the kept animals Bill, which was, of course, withdrawn. As has
been explained, they concern the keeping of primates by private
individuals, but they do not ban such keeping; rather, they
license it. As has been stated, primates have very complex
welfare and social needs, which are likely to be very difficult
to meet in a domestic environment. There has previously been
non-statutory guidance, but this legislation strengthens the
necessary safeguards for the welfare of kept primates.
5.15pm
In common with others, I regret that this legislation does not
completely prohibit the private keeping of primates, but I
presume that its ultimate objective is to phase out such a
practice. Should that be the case, I have two specific
reservations, which have already been referred to. The first
concerns allowing the possibility of breeding, which seems
totally contrary to an objective of phasing out the private
keeping of primates as pets. There is an argument that breeding
should not be allowed except in very rare circumstances where
there may be a strong case for conservation.
Secondly, the regulations allow the potential for exhibiting
primates, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has drawn
attention. This is likely to require special conditions for
transporting and keeping them, in distant locations, different
from their normal housing. It may be very difficult to provide
suitable transport and accommodation, and this would seem totally
unnecessary since we have licensed zoos for the purpose of
exhibiting animals, including primates.
With regard to zoos, I notice that the licensing conditions
described in the regulations do not meet the Government’s
commitment that all private keepers should keep primates at
zoo-level standards. Thus, it is important that the accompanying
guidance, which will set out these rules in great detail, should
be made available for comment as soon as possible. The
regulations suggest that that will be in the spring. Well, spring
is nearly sprung. I look forward to seeing that guidance and hope
that it will take into account some of the points made in this
debate.
I have a number of other concerns. One is around timings and
dates. While a licence is required before April 2026, and
microchipping is a requirement for getting a licence, in
paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 there is reference to a deadline for
microchipping a year later, in April 2027. It may be my
misunderstanding, but could the Minister clarify what appears to
be an anomalous situation?
A major concern about the regulations before us, reflected in the
regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman,
is that there is no grandfather clause. This is in contrast to
suggestions that were made in the original government
consultations in 2020 and 2023, which would have enabled current
keepers to keep their primates until the end of the animals’
natural lives, under certain conditions, beyond the licensing
date. Instead, the regulations provide a transitional period of
two years for owners to comply.
According to government estimates, there may be as many as 5,000
primates in private homes in the UK. We have already heard that
there are very limited facilities to house primates in this
country, so a serious welfare problem may arise when the
regulations come into force with a “hard stop” in April 2026.
I also note that the territorial extent does not include
Scotland. Has there been any discussion with the Scottish
Government about their introducing similar legislation to prevent
the possible “dumping” of unwanted primates on to owners in
Scotland, to avoid the enhanced welfare requirements that will
come into force in England? There are some comparisons and
parallels here with the current XL Bully problem that has arisen
due to England and Scotland having different regulations.
Licensing and inspection are the remit of local authorities and
are to be carried out by “suitably qualified persons”. This term
is not defined in detail in the regulations but, in the debate in
the other place on 31 January this year, Minister Spencer
described what inspectors will be required to assess. Let us bear
in mind that this requirement relates to primates, a very special
group of highly evolved mammals. The inspectors will have to
assess:
“provision of emergency arrangements, care and maintenance,
nutrition and feeding, physical health, environmental behaviour,
handling and restraint, and transport and breeding, as well as
the conditions in which the animals are kept”.—[Official Report,
Commons, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 31/1/24; col.
4.]
I submit that these assessments require considerably more
training, experience and expertise than can be expected of normal
trading standards officers, given the huge breadth of their
responsibilities already. If His Majesty’s Government are to
insist on suitably qualified persons other than vets, then these
regulations highlight the urgent need, as APGAW recommended in a
report on animal welfare enforcement in 2022, for a cadre of
inspectors specially trained in animal welfare in local
authorities. That would be an important complement to the
laudable body of animal welfare legislation that His Majesty's
Government have introduced in the last few years. It would ensure
proper assessment and enforcement of this and other animal
welfare legislation. Notwithstanding that, given the complex
welfare and social needs of primates, I urge that the inspection
of premises and facilities, and the monitoring of the care of
primates, be conducted by veterinarians.
Elsewhere, it has been suggested that only specialist vets should
be used—I note the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
That would be ideal, but it may not be proportionate or
practical. I note that there are only four Royal College of
Veterinary Surgeons specialists in mammalian wildlife medicine,
but perhaps a list of available specialist expertise could be
made available through Defra for local authorities and
veterinarians in practice to consult.
Thus, while I welcome these regulations as an improvement on
current welfare regulations with regard to the private keeping of
primates, they stop short of what many would argue is an
appropriate, reasonable and scientifically justifiable
prohibition on the keeping of primates as pets. I support the
regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady
Hayman.
(GP)
My Lords, I can see that this SI is well motivated—both from an
animal welfare point of view and for the Government to deliver on
a promise. The problem is that it does not deliver on that
promise, just as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said—I enjoyed
her speech and agree with her.
When we look more closely at this SI, we see that it is deeply
weird. For example, I think a lot of people in England would not
even know whether it was legal to own monkeys or other primates
any more. We had an excellent briefing from nine animal welfare
bodies, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation,
which gave us quite a lot of pointers to the gaps in the SI that
need to be filled if we are going to take animal welfare
seriously.
The Government say that they are fulfilling their manifesto
promise, but all they have done is rebrand pet primates as zoo
animals and the owners as “specialist private primate keepers”.
These pet primates must be kept at zoo-level standards. I would
imagine that most pet owners would be horrified at the concept of
keeping their dogs and cats at zoo-level standards, but when we
look at what zoo-level standards are, it begs the question of why
all animals should not be kept in such conditions. The rules
require a suitable diet, access to fresh water, hygienic
standards, registration with a vet, monitoring for illness, being
kept in suitable premises and structures, play space, appropriate
levels of temperature, and animals to be kept in appropriate
social groups—actually, that is going to be quite hard for most
of our new specialist private primate keepers.
I can see only two things in the legislation that separate these
zoo animals from well looked-after pets. The first is that you
are not allowed to play with or handle them and, secondly, there
is a lot of additional bureaucracy, which will be quite difficult
to fulfil. Therefore, the Government have not actually banned
keeping primates as pets; they have banned people from playing
with their primates or pet monkeys and required them to pretend
that they are zookeepers instead. That does not fulfil the
manifesto promise, which is hugely disappointing. However, for
want of anything better—although I will vote for the regret
amendment, which, quite honestly, is the least that we can do—I
can see that the measure is going to pass this House.
(Con)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to put a couple of
questions to the Minister, as she was kind enough to invite us to
do. I declare my interest that I am an associate of the British
Veterinary Association. It did not issue a briefing, but I have
looked at its website and it supports the original thrust of the
consultation, which was for a ban. As recently as December last
year, when it posted its position on its website, it was in
favour of a ban. Why have the Government and the department moved
away from a ban to licensing, as in the regulations today?
Is the Minister in a position to say exactly how many primates
are kept as pets? The noble Lord, , referred to a figure of 5,000,
but I do not know whether that is an authoritative figure or a
guesstimate.
The thrust of the regulations looks very much at licensing
becoming the responsibility of local authorities. I entirely
endorse what the noble Lord, , said about the difficulty of
identifying which professional would be best placed to make sure
that the conditions in which the primate was to be kept were
appropriate. The Minister will be as aware as I am of the severe
constraints under which local authorities are operating at this
time, so I wondered what the thinking was behind putting in place
a licensing scheme rather than a ban—and it would be helpful to
know the total number of primates that we are talking about.
Lastly, when I chaired the EFRA Committee in the other place, we
took a lot of evidence on the import of illegal dogs, dog
smuggling and boiler-room breeding of dogs. I wondered why we
have before us a very worthy statutory instrument on animal
welfare and keeping primates as pets, but we do not seem to have
tackled those other issues, which are a source of great concern
and anxiety to the British public, of illegal dog smuggling and
boiler-room breeding, often in inappropriate sheds, in people’s
homes.
of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I want to follow the point made by the noble Lord,
, about the possibility of
exportation to Scotland when the licensing scheme is set up, as
it will be, in England. It is quite a serious issue, as we have
seen with XL bully dogs. I wonder whether the Minister’s
department has been in touch with the authorities in Scotland to
draw their attention to what is going on so that they are fully
aware and can make their own assessment of the risk.
Some primates are kept as pets in Scotland, and I happen to have
met two of them on separate occasions when they were being taken
for walks. It is not as if it is an entirely English practice;
there are certainly some instances north of the border, although
I do not know how many there are. It is important that the two
jurisdictions work together on this system without the disparity
that is apparently coming because the regulations apply only to
England.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
I declare my interest as working in the veterinary field, and
obviously I am keen on animal welfare.
I too welcome the statutory instrument. It is a step forward for
the improvement of primate welfare. If enforced, the new licence
standards will discourage possible new owners from keeping these
animals. A total ban on keeping primates as pets would be a far
preferable outcome, but that is not what we are being offered
today.
In my view, there are limitations on this, and I support the
regret amendment. The time limit of two years is excessive. For
an animal to be kept under those unacceptable conditions for that
length of time is not particularly good, especially if an
inspection has been done and someone has been given two years to
implement that, as under Part 3, Regulation 15(2)(a) and (c).
5.30pm
In paragraph 21(a) of Schedule 1, there is no definition of the
appropriate frequency for a routine veterinary inspection. A
minimum of at least once a year should be included in that
regulation, just to ensure good public health.
There is a regulation on nutrition and feeding, requiring a
review of these routines, with inspections and changes, on a
12-monthly basis. I believe that these should be inspected by a
veterinary surgeon as well.
The impact of this licensing will put pressure on the veterinary
profession, which is currently short-staffed, with workforce
issues. With many new regulations, do we have the resources to
implement these welcome new high-welfare standards for all
primates?
When this statutory instrument comes into force, there will be no
grandfather rights, so there is going to be excessive pressure on
rescue centres. There is no guidance in the regulations as to how
the current owners of these primates, or people who have been
denied licences, should deal with them. I welcome these changes
to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but they do not go far enough. I
support the regret amendment.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble
Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for her very thorough
introduction to this regret amendment. I am grateful to her for
the chance to debate the issue in more detail. I refer to my
interests as set out in the register.
The Government carried out consultations in 2020, when there were
4,516 responses, with 98% of respondents expressing support.
Further consultations were carried out from 20 June to 18 July
2023, when there were 643 responses, mainly from those involved
in looking after primates, animal welfare charities, individuals
who were known to already keep primates as pets and members of
the public. On this occasion, 97% of respondents were in favour.
The regulations will come into force on 6 April 2026. Given the
high level of support from the consultations for these measures,
why are the Government not implementing them sooner than April
2026? Is this due to the guidance not being published until the
spring of 2024, to which local authorities, as the EM says,
“will be required to have due regard”?
I would like some clarification from the Minister, please. The
noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has referred to the lack of
guidance.
The regulations are due to be administered by local authorities,
which will inspect and grant licences, either by a veterinarian
or by another suitably qualified and competent person. Nearly all
Members have referred to this. Given that the Government do not
really know just how many primates are being kept by private
keepers, I am slightly alarmed at the impact on local
authorities.
Paragraph 12.1 of the EM says that there will be
“no … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.
However, it also says:
“There are between 1000 and 5000 primates being held as pets …
and the majority of these are held by private keepers”.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of
Pickering, that information is in the Explanatory Memorandum.
There is a world of difference between 1,000 and 5,000. This is a
huge number of very sensitive animals potentially being held in
inappropriate circumstances, with the Government not having even
an approximation of how many there are, let alone a precise
number. Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient
veterinary and other professionals capable of dealing with the
numbers and complexities of the licensing regimes being proposed?
The noble Lord, , and the noble Baroness, Lady
Hayman of Ullock, have referred to this.
Primates currently comprise 502 extant species, which are grouped
into 81 genera. These range from gorillas, orang-utangs,
chimpanzees and baboons down to aye-ayes, loris and lemurs. Each
is very different, requiring different treatment, diets and
housing. The actual instrument gives extremely detailed
restrictions and conditions on how primates are to be kept. This
makes it obvious that the keeping of a primate by a private
individual is difficult, if not impossible—quite rightly so.
Most primates are very social animals and need the company of
others of their species. If not allowed to roam free in the
countries of their origin, they should be kept in licensed zoos,
whether private or open to the public. Only in these
circumstances can we be sure that the stringent provisions of
this SI will be enacted and that primates will be able to enjoy a
life as close as possible to that which they would have enjoyed
in the wild. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, has made reference
to this.
The RSPCA is concerned that insufficient thought is being given
to what will happen to the animals belonging to those primate
keepers who do not receive a licence to continue to keep their
pet. As has already been said, there are not innumerable spaces
in animal welfare organisations or primate sanctuaries to manage
the resulting flow of primates following the implementation of
the SI. How are the Government going to ensure the welfare of
these primates, which they have indicated should be kept in
zoo-level standards?
I turn now to the issue of fees. Regulation 13 states that a
local authority may
“(a) charge a fee in respect of any application relating to a
primate licence under this Part; (b) charge a fee in respect of
any inspection which it must or may arrange under this Part”.
This gives the impression that local authorities are free to set
their own fees. That is good, but we could end up with dozens of
different sets of fees up and down the country. There is also
likely to be a different set of fees depending on the size and
number of primates involved. While I welcome that local
government itself will determine what the fee will be to cover
its costs, some sort of yardstick would be useful. It is unlikely
that local authorities will have veterinarians on their payroll,
so they will have to buy in the services of the relevant
qualified person both to inspect to grant the licence in the
first place and to carry out routine inspections in the future to
ensure that the terms of the licence are being adhered to. The
noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this. No
one in this Chamber is under any illusion about the state of
local government finance. With populations increasing and social
care under pressure, to be asking local authorities to take on
yet more duties without providing the finance to cover them is
unacceptable.
The instrument also has a section on rectification notices, and
allows two years for steps to be taken to comply with licence
conditions. This is far too long for a primate to be kept in
conditions that do not comply with the licence granted. The noble
Lord, Lord de Clifford, has referred to this. This might relate
to poor diet or lack of space or stimulation, or it might relate
to public safety. Does the Minister agree that the time for
compliance for the rectification notice should be much shorter
than two years?
I fear that I do not agree with others about a grandfather clause
and allowing animals to stay with their keepers until the end of
their life. This is a long time to be living in great misery.
Finally—others have referred to this point—paragraph 39 of
Schedule 1, dealing with restraint, states:
“No primate may be handled or restrained except … insofar as … it
is necessary for the purposes of an exhibition activity.”
Paragraph 42 says:
“No primate may be transported unless … it is necessary for the
purposes of an exhibition activity”.
This gives the impression that a primate may be transported for
the purposes of performing in front of others, and the public.
Can the Minister say what is meant by
“for the purposes of an exhibition”
because, as written, it is extremely worrying? The noble
Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, raised this, as did the noble
Baroness, Lady Fookes.
I remain concerned that, unless these measures are implemented
quickly, some primates will live in unsuitable conditions,
without the company of their fellows, and be miserable as a
result. Although it is not perfect, I support the general thrust
of this SI.
(Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the
debate. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble
Baroness, Lady Hayman, in support of her amendment, and to other
contributions in today’s debate, and I have been struck by our
shared commitment to act to improve the welfare of privately kept
primates. It is important that we do act.
We introduced this SI in response to a call for evidence and
consultation exercises that confirmed the extensive mistreatment
of privately kept primates. Some of this evidence was, frankly,
horrible and highlighted primates being kept in poor conditions,
in small enclosures or birdcages, and suffering from fractures or
misshapen bones. It is absolutely right that the Government take
action to address primate welfare in non-zoo settings.
It has been encouraging to note that the strong response to the
consultation exercises has been to welcome the Government’s
decision to put a licensing scheme in place for the keeping of
primates to address their specialised needs. It has also been
encouraging today to note support from across the House for our
objective of improving primate welfare. I am grateful to the
noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to state clearly the
Government’s view. I recognise her and other noble Lords’
concerns and will seek to address them now.
The amendment suggests that the SI does not ban the keeping of
primates as pets. I have explained in my opening remarks that
that is essentially incorrect. The vast majority of animals kept
as pets in this country do not need to comply with the kinds of
licensing conditions contained in this SI. This is not semantics.
Primates have particular welfare needs that cannot be met by
keeping them as household pets, and this SI seeks to end that
practice. Those currently keeping primates in birdcages and in
other wholly inappropriate conditions will no longer be able to
do so. Only those people keeping or wishing to keep primates who
can demonstrate compliance with the licensing conditions and
welfare standards to the satisfaction of enforcement authorities
will be able to keep primates privately. These conditions are
stringent and are the kinds of measures that would not apply to
household pets.
The noble Baroness’s amendment also regrets the absence of a
grandfather clause, as was raised by a number of other noble
Lords, and advocates government policies to support rehoming.
Given the evidence that we have about mistreatment of primates,
the Government do not believe that continuing to allow private
primate keepers to retain primates in poor conditions is the best
thing for these animals. Future rehoming and surrender
arrangements are very important concerns, of course, but the
Government do not believe that the answer is to allow suffering
animals to be kept as they are. Instead, this SI provides a
two-year period before the requirements come into force to
provide keepers time to comply with the requirements. Until we
license, we will not know the scale of primate keeping, but I can
assure the House that we will continue to work closely with
rescue and rehoming charities to monitor the impact of the SI on
rehoming activity, and to respond accordingly to evidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked whether we might consider
keeping a register of primate specialists. I shall certainly take
that suggestion back to the department. I can confirm that this
legislation applies only to England. If you have a criminal
conviction for animal welfare issues, you will not be eligible
for a primate licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others asked about the
licensing conditions that must be met. The primate licence will
be issued only to those who can meet the welfare standards set
out in the regulation. Those standards are akin to the standards
that licensed zoos must meet and include requirements such as
microchipping, local authority inspections and record-keeping.
They also include minimum welfare requirements, such as emergency
arrangements and requirements regarding care and maintenance,
nutrition and feeding, physical health, environment, behaviour,
handling and restraint, transport, and breeding.5.45pm
A number of noble Lords raised the issue around breeding and
asked why the Government are not cracking down on private keepers
breeding primates. This legislation will ensure that only those
who can keep primates to appropriate welfare standards are able
to do so. When a keeper chooses to breed primates, the keeper
will need to meet the welfare standards set out in Schedule 1 to
the SI on breeding. Through the standards, breeding activities
will be controlled and subject to veterinary oversight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, the noble Lord, , and one or two other noble
Lords raised the issue of allowing licensed keepers to take
primates out on exhibitions. A keeper of a primate may take
primates out for exhibition only if the keeper has a licence
under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving
Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 permitting this activity.
Such a licence will require the keeper to adhere to the welfare
standards set out in the regulations in relation to exhibition
activities.
The noble Lord, , and the noble and learned Lord,
, raised the question of the
devolved Administrations, Scotland in particular. I can confirm
that the department works very closely with the devolved
Administrations but, as noble Lords probably know, this is a
devolved matter. The comparison was drawn with XL Bullies, and it
was a good comparison. In that example, we did quite a lot of
consultation with the devolved Administrations, and Scotland
chose a different route from ours. We tried to advance the
argument of exactly what might happen, and that argument was
refuted—but it all came to pass, as I think noble Lords are
aware.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Fookes, and the noble
Lord, , talked about primates being
social creatures. This SI says that primates must be kept in
social groups, and this will be detailed in the guidance that
will be available shortly.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady McIntosh, and one or
two others, asked how the regulations will be enforced. As with
most existing animal welfare legislation, local authorities will
be responsible for implementing and enforcing the new
legislation. We will also be issuing guidance to local
authorities on the exercise of their function under this
legislation. This will cover issues such as interpreting licence
standards, appointing inspectors, conducting inspections, and so
on.
With that, I hope that I have answered your Lordships’ questions
and that all noble Lords share my conviction regarding the need
for this instrument. As is clear from the debate, animals matter
to all in this House, as they do to the British people. This
instrument is a step forward and a promise kept by a Government
with animal welfare close to their heart.
(CB)
Is the Minister confident that suitably qualified persons can
appropriately inspect and monitor the enforcement of these
regulations for primates?
(Con)
The noble Lord asks a very good question. One reason for the
two-year lead-in is to give us time to assess the qualifications
that are needed and put the appropriate training in place to
ensure that we can fulfil that obligation.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his careful and considered
response to the many questions and issues raised during the
debate. Particular concerns were expressed about breeding and
exhibiting. I listened to the noble Lord’s explanation, but I
still do not understand why people would need to breed or
exhibit. The key thing that came through from the debate, for me,
was that noble Lords support a complete ban rather than the
licensing that has come through. The consultation responses
supported a total ban, the Government appeared to support a
complete ban, and as I say, all noble Lords who spoke in this
debate supported a total ban, so I still do not understand why
that is not what the Government brought forward, as it was what
we were all expecting. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw
my amendment.
Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.
Motion agreed.
|
